Quoting Woola:

Quote:
Indee, well said, little Ken.

I have repeatedly tried to explain that IMDbhas it's "yardstick" and we have ours. I like our yardstick as it is based on real data not user-created data. Every time i run into an IMDb error and that is almost daily, I am left wondering against the ACTUAL credits, what movie or TV Series has IMDb ever produced. The answer to that rhetorical question, of course, is NONE, not one, not ever. What movie has Profiler ever produced...not one, not ever. So which data will I put my faith in, something that was created out of whole cloth by some users imagination and not even documented or the data generated by those who actually produced the film. I think that answer is obvious and my answer has been reinforced numerous times including most recently by a third party review of profiler in which our program was lauded "It consists solely of data submitted by DVD Profiler (Unlimited) users, and is more complete than the publicly available sources used by the other programs reviewed. Everything from cast and crew lists to special features and even thorough descriptions of any easter eggs on each disc are included." Those other programs nearly all of which cost more than profiler, all license data from third party sources.

So complain as you will and refer to the "absurdity of the criteria" as much as you wish. The SOLE weakness in the system for cast and Crew lays in the flawed execution of the linking system, but i have said this for some years now, almost from the implementation of said system, we all too sadly know that there are those who refuse to follow the rules and some bad data was merged from Intervocative, all that skews the results from the klinking and yields poor results. While I think there are better ways, I am at this point not certain if the cure might not be worse than the disease, I don't have access to Ken's code so that i can war-game some of these things and determine the answer. I would if I could, but even that would only llow me to report the results of the research, it would be for Ken to execute it, and perhaps he already knows the answer is working towards a solution. All I can say is that any sort of system which is totally dependant on user-inputted data being properly input 100% to yield correct results, is doomed.   All too sadly,

Skip

Where does this site get it's data from and just because it's not user generated it does not mean it's right. Every week there's some stupid post about the spelling of some guys name and 5 pages after there's still no agreement just one persons word against another.

How then can you credit your "yardstick" as being the superior when it seems it's just as flawed and equal as any other.

Quoting FilmAlba:

Quote:
Where does this site get it's data from and just because it's not user generated it does not mean it's right. Every week there's some stupid post about the spelling of some guys name and 5 pages after there's still no agreement just one persons word against another.

This site gets its data from the actual film credits, or at least it is supposed to.  If people transcribe the data correctly from the film credits, there cannot be any disagreement over what is there.  It is either right or wrong, black or white.

Quote:
How then can you credit your "yardstick" as being the superior when it seems it's just as flawed and equal as any other.

The yardstick Skip credits is simply what is printed in the films credits.  If the credits are "flawed" it's because the producers did it that way.  But it is what it is.  The beauty of using the credits is that with very few exceptions, they are attached to the film for any and all to see.  So, this yardstick is superior because it is defined that way -- strict transcription of the credits "as credited."

BTW:  I recognize that there may be exceptions (different credits for different releases of the same film, for example).  But those are not all that frequent.

Quoting kdh1949:

Quote:
Quoting FilmAlba:

Quote:
Where does this site get it's data from and just because it's not user generated it does not mean it's right. Every week there's some stupid post about the spelling of some guys name and 5 pages after there's still no agreement just one persons word against another.

This site gets its data from the actual film credits, or at least it is supposed to.  If people transcribe the data correctly from the film credits, there cannot be any disagreement over what is there.  It is either right or wrong, black or white.

Quote:
How then can you credit your "yardstick" as being the superior when it seems it's just as flawed and equal as any other.

The yardstick Skip credits is simply what is printed in the films credits.  If the credits are "flawed" it's because the producers did it that way.  But it is what it is.  The beauty of using the credits is that with very few exceptions, they are attached to the film for any and all to see.  So, this yardstick is superior because it is defined that way -- strict transcription of the credits "as credited."

BTW:  I recognize that there may be exceptions (different credits for different releases of the same film, for example).  But those are not all that frequent.

So you run the end credits of a movie then use that as your source. If that's the case what if the movie is in another language like Korean or Mandarin.

Honestly i don't think we have to go to this much trouble when databasing our DVD's. There's just so far you can take accuracy when dealing with this kind of thing and think people need to be more excepting of that .

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
I don't think I have ever seen a post about the spelling of some guys name.  Parsing, yes.  Capitalization, yes.  Spelling, no.

I could start one if you want me to.     

This site gets it's data from the ACTUAL film credits, that is REAL hard data, it is not user imagined or generated, the data appears On Screen and it is simple data entry. The same as any data entry job, you get the data and you transcribe the data, you don't interpret the data.  When users decide they want to argue over someone's spelling, they are no longer transcribing data, they are trying to interpret data, that is OK locally,, for our own local databases we all have the right to follow whatever meets our own individual needs. But for the Online it's another story there hundreds of thousands of users and if every one those users were permitted to interpret instead of transcribing, film alba, then we would trukly have a mess.

One of my favorite examples from before we had Rules and BEFORE Ken made some hard and fast decision was on the sort title. Users used to battle over how films would be sorted. Some would understandably want to be able to sort all of their james Bond titles together, but that is a local decision, as a user looking for a title in the online you are going to look for Goldfinger, if some user has applied his own arcane sort to the title, be it James Bond 3, James Bond 03, JB 003 or whatever the user has chosen for his OWN needs and desires to make the online behave HIS way, are you going to figure out what he did and find, you are likely to be looking for Goldfinger...right. Right. Ken finally publicly stated that from that point forward Sort=Title, sadly but predictably this did not stop the abuse of the system. So finally hehad to take all possibilities of user manipulation away and he said that Sort was now a PRIVATE issue and the Online Sort would be determined by HIM. So, when you want Goldfinger, you will find Goldfinger, and however you want to handle it locally is your personal choice. The rest of the data is no different, it is data entry and not data interpret, you want to interpret data some way that works best for you, you do so locally. This is something that MOST users seem to comprehend, but that a few even can't or refuse to to understand. It is simply based on hard data that everyone can see ON SCREEN and transcribe the data from, if you want to list Chris Pine as James T. Kirk, that does not match the real data, that is data that is present only in your imagination, even if you argue that he is called James T. Kirk, Jim Kirk or whatever, that is not the data that appears On Screen it is only present in your mind, and if that is what serves your use and want to list it that way locally that is your choice, it is not Contributable. It is a ver simple process and one that should be extremely easy to grasp, but some reason some don't, why...I could only hypothesize at the various rationale involved, but they all have one thing in mind, the arguments are not Community centered but are user-centered. In essence, I want to call him James T. Kirk because that is his name or some other such inanity. The Online is not the end all nor is it designed to be everyone's reference point, it is simply a starting point from which all users can construct their own database to service their particular needs, but the Online is not intended to, nor should it be expected to meet the individual needs of ANY user.

Skip

Quoting FilmAlba:

Quote:
So you run the end credits of a movie then use that as your source. If that's the case what if the movie is in another language like Korean or Mandarin.

Oh, that's easy:
If in doubt, don't enter anything.
But since since this database has a multinational usership and some of these users are able to read even such obscure languages as Mandarin (one of the most spoken languages BTW), help is never very far away. Ken explicitly allowed the cloning of accepted (hopefully correct) profiles. My favourite solution for this problem: Clone a profile from the matching locality.

Quoting FilmAlba:

Quote:
Quoting kdh1949:

Quote:
Quoting FilmAlba:

Quote:
Where does this site get it's data from and just because it's not user generated it does not mean it's right. Every week there's some stupid post about the spelling of some guys name and 5 pages after there's still no agreement just one persons word against another.

This site gets its data from the actual film credits, or at least it is supposed to.  If people transcribe the data correctly from the film credits, there cannot be any disagreement over what is there.  It is either right or wrong, black or white.

Quote:
How then can you credit your "yardstick" as being the superior when it seems it's just as flawed and equal as any other.

The yardstick Skip credits is simply what is printed in the films credits.  If the credits are "flawed" it's because the producers did it that way.  But it is what it is.  The beauty of using the credits is that with very few exceptions, they are attached to the film for any and all to see.  So, this yardstick is superior because it is defined that way -- strict transcription of the credits "as credited."

BTW:  I recognize that there may be exceptions (different credits for different releases of the same film, for example).  But those are not all that frequent.

So you run the end credits of a movie then use that as your source. If that's the case what if the movie is in another language like Korean or Mandarin.

Honestly i don't think we have to go to this much trouble when databasing our DVD's. There's just so far you can take accuracy when dealing with this kind of thing and think people need to be more excepting of that .

As for Korean or Mandarin, that is a Program limitation which we cannot control. Cyrillic is another.

I think that users such as yourself, film alba, should be more accepting of the system that Profiler uses, instead of expecting the program to be understanding of YOU. As I have said you are free to do as you wish locally (I'll never say you nay), and if you upload your collection the Invelos servers will create a clone of your data and we all get to see the data exactly as you WISH it presented. But for Contributions just transcibe the data and don't try to interpret it, I know it's boring, data entry always is. Whatever you might claim to be a typo in a given entry could well be deliberate on the part of the filmmakers, since you were not involved in the film, you can only see it as a typo, you have no idea if it was done deliberately nor can you determinewhy it might have been done.
.
Skip

Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
Quoting FilmAlba:

Quote:
So you run the end credits of a movie then use that as your source. If that's the case what if the movie is in another language like Korean or Mandarin.

Honestly i don't think we have to go to this much trouble when databasing our DVD's. There's just so far you can take accuracy when dealing with this kind of thing and think people need to be more excepting of that .

And yes... most of us run the credits when profiling... after all the rules even say that is the only place to get the info from.